Annisa Kumerow summarized the staff report. Staff recommendation is to approve the project with the following condition: The vinyl clad windows and doors should be replaced with a wood or metal product.

George Hettich, property owner, was in attendance and gave a summary of his request including the reason for requesting vinyl windows. Steve Lichtenfeld felt the new windows should conform with the way the ARB has been traditionally working. Helen DiFate – asked are new windows vinyl clad or vinyl? GH – responded that they are vinyl clad, Anderson brand. HD – spoke to vinyl clad vs vinyl window. Noted her concern is vinyl clad window of the name brands are good windows. A vinyl window usually has a different profile and is vinyl inside/outside and is not the same as a vinyl clad window. That’s where she would make the distinction. They are two different products. Vinyl clad is a high end product where a vinyl window would be located in a less expensive home, such as a starter home. Also asked is there a room where they would be two different windows? Are existing windows true vinyl or vinyl clad.? GH – confirmed they are vinyl clad noted there would not be two different windows all are vinyl clad. DG – asked difference between vinyl clad vs vinyl, is clad a wood core? HD – Anderson windows it is a wood core with a vinyl clad on exterior and interior is a wood window. IB – Asked for basis of wood vs vinyl? Why is wood better? HD – wood is traditional window, and vinyl cladding is to protect exterior and minimizes painting maintenance cost and actual maintenance. The Vinyl window is vinyl outside and inside. Usually has a thinner profile and frame around it is thinner. Wood window is higher end, better quality window used in high end homes. Vinyl windows are also cheaper to customize. Comes down to cost and appearance. IB – notes he believes it is an appearance issue. Front of house should be wood. Susan Istenes – noted that the City asks, as part of the application process, what the windows are made of. Staff informs applicants up front that vinyl windows are not preferred by ARB. Noted Bemiston Place project wanted to use vinyl windows. ARB was concerned over visibility from street for that project. SL – noted he wasn’t sure without getting up really close he could tell if a window was vinyl or vinyl clad. Confirmed by HD. SL – vinyl clad wood window is of the quality we want. Does not think the difference would be noticeable. Leaning towards accepting vinyl clad. HD – would accept vinyl clad. IB – appears that vinyl clad appearance is very difficult to discern between vinyl clad or wood and is ok with either. DG – wants to make sure we are consistent when moving forward and staff communicates that to applicants if we are going to accept vinyl clad.

IB – appears that vinyl clad appearance is very difficult to discern between vinyl clad or wood and is ok with either. DG – wants to make sure we are consistent when moving forward and staff communicates that to applicants if we are going to accept vinyl clad.

Hearing no additional comments from the Board and no comments from the audience. Helen Di Fate made a motion to approve the project as submitted with vinyl clad windows and sliding patio doors, seconded by Ira Berkowitz, motion approved unanimously. 8000 FORSYTH BOULEVARD – ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD – COMMERCE BANK EAST TOWER ARTWORK Annisa Kumerow summarized staff report. Staff recommendation is to approve as submitted. SL – noted it was a fabulous piece, 50 years old, and thinks it will fit into space beautifully. GH – no comments, beautiful piece. HD – likes piece; presents circular voids within each part presents wonderful opportunities for people to become engaged with it. IB – questioned if project meets stipulation in PUD for public benefit. Susan Istenes – noted that the public art for this project was approved in the PUD as a Public Benefit exchange for points and as a condition of approval there is a requirement that the applicant work with an art expert to help select the pieces (two pieces for the project). Robin Traxton (RT) – joined meeting, applicant DG – pointed out each tower has a separate owner and this piece is for the commerce bank tower and there will be another piece coming forward at a later time. RT – fine art curator for Commerce Bank introduced herself. Denny Holzmeier (sp), applicant, joined by telephone. Noted they met with City Art Commission and they have decided to relocate one of their pieces from Kansas City and that’s where Robin came in. Noted location and platform for art piece. Confirmed this piece is strictly for east tower and is one of the PUD requirements. SL – noted it went through PAAC and they recommended approval IB – there was a process how the artwork was to be selected and approve per the PUD SL – confirmed this item does not go to Board of Aldermen; PC is final approval authority. Chairman discussed tabling item to next meeting to ensure compliance with PUD requirements. Ira Berkowitz made a motion to table, second by GH. The motion was unanimously approved. PUBLIC HEARING – PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO CHAPTER 410, ARTICLES III AND IV AND THE PROPOSED ADOPTION OF DESIGN STANDARDS. Tim Breihan H3 Studios was present and summarized the changes to H3 made to the regulations and forwarded to the Commission Monday afternoon. SL – noted it was difficult to figure out the changes that were made in a short time frame and the document given to the Board was not properly formatted and was without page numbers. SL commented on Design Guidelines they are formatted nicely and understandably.